Of course at least elements of the claims of photoshopping and fraud to promote Environmentalism are true. And yesterday, we learn that non government organizations such as Greenspeace admit their fraud and deception, claiming it to be a matter of “free speech” and expressing of themselves in a “figurative” manner.

“includes telling the court that its claims about Resolute being “forest destroyers,” responsible for a “caribou death spiral and extinction” and myriad other vilifications, were all just marketing hype. “The challenged statements are no more than opinion based on disclosed facts,” Greenpeace International’s lawyers explained in their latest motion to dismiss the RICO suit.”<<<Read More>>>

*Editor’s Note* – Open your eyes for a second to understand what is going on. This should further substantiate that we are living in a “Post-Normal” world, i.e. white is black, black is white, good is bad, bad is good, etc. “Liberals” are looking to censor and destroy rights. A liberal would not do that. A liberal would be fighting to protect all rights and destroy all laws and regulations that destroy those rights. So, then who are these people that call themselves Liberals?

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

National Center for Public Policy Research Urges Shareholders to Reject Proposal to Restrict Disney’s Ability to Associate With U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Other Pro-Business Groups

Denver, CO/Washington, D.C. – The nation’s leading proponent of free-market investor activism is urging Walt Disney Company shareholders to reject a proposal under consideration this week that would harm the company’s ability to speak and associate freely.

At the annual meeting of Disney shareholders being held in Denver, Colorado on March 8, National Center for Public Policy Research General Counsel and Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof, Esq. plans to speak out against a shareholder proposal about lobbying disclosure being offered by Zevin Asset Management. The National Center is warning shareholders that the Zevin proposal, designated as proposal #1, could restrict Disney’s ability to engage in relationships beneficial to its business.

The National Center also notes left-wing political activists are hypocritical, because they oppose businesses having relationships with free-market advocates and groups but say nothing about corporate spending favoring liberal political issues.

Zevin’s proposal demands Disney reveal details about and the motivation for its spending on lobbying as well as Disney’s memberships and support for non-profits involved in creating model legislation.

Zevin’s proposal, and Disney’s response to it, are available on pages 61-63 of the company’s proxy statement, which is available for download here.

In the National Center’s prepared statement to be read at the Disney shareholder meeting in opposition to proposal #1, Danhof says:

Zevin is attempting to conscript Disney’s shareholders into its efforts to defund and silence the National Restaurant Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, groups that seek to improve America’s business environment.

Danhof adds:

[G]roups such as Zevin never – and I mean never – express concern about the billions of corporate dollars that go to fund liberal causes and politicians. Herein lies the hypocrisy of its proposal. Zevin abhors corporate speech when it is perceived to skew to the political right. It remains silent when speech supports leftist causes they favor.

This will be the second time the National Center has challenged Zevin Asset Management on the issue of lobbying disclosure and business relationships at a Walt Disney Company shareholder meeting. After the National Center spoke out against a similar proposal in 2016, Zevin’s proposal was defeated by Disney shareholders by a more than 2-1 margin.

The National Center has also been critical of Disney, questioning Disney CEO Bob Iger on issues such as the need for political protections for its employees and bias in the reporting of company-owned news organizations at shareholder meetings as far back as 2009. After being questioned about media bias in 2013, Iger conceded to the National Center’s Justin Danhof, “we have, at times, either presented the news in… a slightly inaccurate way through mistakes or in ways we weren’t necessarily proud of.” Disney owns ABC and ESPN.

Danhof may question Disney executives on a topic not related to proposal #1 at the March 8 meeting.

Launched in 2007, the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Free Enterprise Project is the nation’s preeminent free-market activist group, focusing on shareholder activism and the confluence of big government and big business. Since 2014, National Center representatives have participated in nearly 100 shareholder meetings advancing free-market ideals in the areas of health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, food policies, media bias, gun rights, workers’ rights and many other important public policy issues. Disney’s meeting will mark its third shareholder meeting so far in 2017.

In 2016, the Free Enterprise Project was featured in the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the Fox News Channel’s “Cavuto,” the Drudge Report, the Financial Times, Crain’s Chicago Business, the Hollywood Reporter, the Los Angeles Times, Fortune, Newsmax, the Daily Caller, Lifezette, the Seattle Times, the Quad City Times, the San Francisco Chronicle and the Chicago Tribune among many others. The Free Enterprise Project was also featured in Wall Street Journal writer Kim Strassel’s 2016 book The Intimidation Game: How the Left is Silencing Free Speech (Hachette Book Group).

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors. Subscribe to The National Center here. Follow us on Twitter at @NationalCenter for general announcements. To be alerted to upcoming media appearances by National Center staff, follow our media appearances Twitter account at @NCPPRMedia.

Remember this guy in Maine? He erected a sign on his own property exclaiming, “Black Rifles Matter.” He’s at it again. This time, he’s definitely going to experience the wrath of the Left as he dared to erect cut-outs of a manger scene, wise men, angels and an infant baby Yeshuwah! How dare he!

Americans simply don’t understand rights. A right is something a person is supposed to enjoy expressing because, for whatever the reasons, they believe in the need to make such an expression. Exercising of a right to free speech, for example, should not be limited simply because a person does not agree with another’s political perceptions. Also misunderstood about rights is that, although as an American you are supposed to be guaranteed and protected of certain rights, they believe they are also protected from the repercussions that may befall them for the choice they made. Never!

Americans are hypocrites, among other things, and cherry pick when and how a person is supposed to exercise a right – according to their value system. We all should know that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that there is no protection of the American Flag. It can be burned, trampled and pissed on and that is part of the First Amendment freedom of speech. Somehow, Americans believe that the First Amendment is worth giving up over 13 stripes and 50 stars (57 if you are Obama), and the musical anthem of this country.

It matters not, to the establishment and protection of a right, whether you think an NFL football player is doing the right thing by not standing for the playing of the national anthem. What matters is that you should understand he has that right as an individual…supposedly. However, making that choice, of which he said he gave it a lot of consideration, will come with consequences…as do all our choices.

So, stop being a hypocritical idiot, and support this person’s right to free speech. If you think his perceptions are wrong, then I would suggest that instead of continuing to blindly follow your centralized government, believing they can do no wrong, you spend the time to find all the legitimate reasons in the world to convince Mr. Kaepernick his is mistaken. Good luck!

And while he is being run through the wringer for making a freedom of choice decision, the leaders of this government, responsible for the deaths of millions upon millions, continue to lie, cheat, steal, murder, perjure, etc. with no consequences for their actions.

If only the brainwashed, had they not been brainwashed, were as enthusiastic about lynching a man for exercising his right to free speech as they SHOULD be about putting politicians in jail for very serious crimes they have committed.

My Free Speech “Trumps” Your Free Speech

President Barack H. Obama is presently meeting with his legal advisers to examine how he can “legally” erode the Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms, through Executive Action. Because of a listless society and a corrupt Congress, providing for presidents, current and past, to write laws via a method of bypassing Congress, we are headed toward dictatorial, fascist rule…inch by inch. Historically, this has happened before. We live in dangerous times, with many reasons to fear, such usurpation is on our doorstep.

While it may be already too late, a first step necessary to stop the bleeding is to recognize where the blood is coming from and how the injury happened.

Here is a brief examination of one example of how it happened and a comparative look at what’s happening today. Perhaps it’s time to stop denying truth and Wake Up, America!

There is real danger in America’s bent to make everything politically correct. The term itself, political correctness, is representative of American culture today in that we find misleading or poor representative terms and phrases to give something title instead of calling it what it is. In this case, political correctness is nothing more than censorship. To the intelligent, censorship is a loss of our right to free speech.

Censorship, is a taking away of the rights of free men. All laws are, to some degree, the taking away of the rights of free men. We have been taught to believe that all laws are proper and necessary for the protection of a free society. This is an oxymoron of epic proportions – a disease with seemingly no cure. We see it in several parts of our political and societal existence – believing we are creating a cure for a problem only to discover the created cure exacerbates the problem.

Political Correctness has more far-reaching dangers than most realize. In a post-normal society, like that of the United States, history is being repeated, not only because it is not being taught, or not being taught honestly, but it cannot be taught accurately because history has been hijacked, the end result, some of which is, political correctness.

The censorship of free speech, i.e. political correctness, forces all of us to teach half-truths in history, while often failing to address the root causes of prominent social, economic and political issues. Therefore, there is no learning process because history is watered down, while sinister processes ensure no discussion of truthful matters perpetuates the valuable lessons that should be learned from historic events. Perhaps none is more evident than modern speech and censorship when attempting to discuss the results of fascist rule of Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich. The most prominent of political correctness can be seen whenever anyone attempts to make any kind of correlation with current events and those of Hitler. Even if some of us have learned from history, isn’t the censorship a tool to cover up the horrors of fascist rule? Perhaps the censorship in this instance is a planned event. I happen to think it is. For those seeking ultimate power and control over all people and resources, nothing would be more detrimental to that agenda than bringing to review the actual historic accounts of repressive, murderous regimes like Hitler’s.

Before Hitler gained power in Germany, certain events took place that laid the groundwork for, not only the elevation of the Hitler regime to political prominence, but what was to take place after that power was ceded away from the socialist-democratic government of Germany.

Nearly every American is willing to cede his/her rights because they have been bred to believe it is necessary for safety, the rule of law and national security, while at the same time willing to blindly follow their government, wishing never to believe their government would ever resort to Fascism and/or dictatorial reign. By giving away those rights, it places the control of that part of you into the hands of a centralized government. History should have taught us that the bigger and stronger a centralized government becomes, the smaller our freedoms and liberties become. Yet, we follow the wrong path.

As such, a majority of Americans are convinced that something called “reasonable gun control laws” are necessary for various reasons and something that fits into a progressive society. Such benign behavior has resulted in the murder of millions of people throughout the world.

We must, therefore, compare and correlate what led up to the takeover of the Hitler Regime in Germany and events taking place in America today. The comparisons are so similar, one would have to question whether or not the same evil that brought about the disarming of Germany and the Holocaust is in play in the United States today. In history we read such things that took place in Germany in the early 1900s that clearly set the stage for Hitler’s fascist rule. These events read as current events in the U.S.

Prior to the Hitler Regime, Germany consisted of independent states, with the liberty to create their own laws, similar to the way the U.S. once was. History reveals that many of these states would begin campaigns to disarm feared political opponents and those who might threaten the existing governments. This fear was of a “communist” take over perpetuated by those with political influence. This eventually led to laws aimed at disarming the citizenry.

It seemed that in Germany, a country that once allowed for the private possession of weapons, not that much unlike those of the United States, a new regime of social democrats began an effort to limit the right to keep and bear arms, based on the fear that communists, who might be able to buy and possess arms, would become a threat to the ruling party. History should have taught us that a fearful society is a society ripe for the picking.

Even prior to the 1928 enactment of the Weimar Republic, the chaos that existed in Germany led to the passage of “the Verordnung des Rates der Volksbeauftragen über Waffenbesitz (Regulations of the Council of the People’s Delegates on Weapons Possession). This gun control law demanded the immediate surrender to the central government of all weapons and ammunition. Failure to do so would lead to imprisonment.

This law passed because of the fear generated that another war might start if guns and ammunition were not controlled. This law was later repealed and replaced with different gun laws that, on the surface, appeared more benign, but would ultimately lead to the easy pickings by a fascist regime.

These draconian gun laws were responsible for the onset of semi-governmental groups of thugs and those who took it upon themselves to be the enforcers of new gun regulations. Unfortunately, at least one of these groups was the foundation of the move in Germany to National Socialism.

In 1920, the Law on the Disarmament of the People passed. This law gave a Reichskommissar the authority to decided which guns were “military” in style – perhaps better understood by Americans to define an “assault weapon,” – and who could and could not buy or possess.

By 1928 and the rule of the Weimar Republic, it was decided to pass a “comprehensive” gun law – Law on Firearms and Ammunition. This law required a license for anyone interested in making, assembling or repairing guns and ammunition and the sale thereof. In addition, the same law prohibited any selling of arms and ammo at fairs, shooting competitions or related events.

Anyone wishing to own a weapon, now had to apply for a license. Those wishing to carry a firearm, had to obtain another license. All of these regulations certainly should be familiar to most Americans. If they don’t already exist, totalitarians continue to demand exactly what the German national socialists were demanding.

But the laws didn’t stop at licensing. Authority was given to the Reichskommissar to make sure that a license was given only to “persons whose reliability is not in doubt, and only after proving a need for them.” (Background checks to show you are not listed on some fake “domestic terror watchlist,” had psychiatric treatment or some other “condition” left up to the discretion of a man or panel of men.) In certain cases of undesirable classes of people, a right to own and/or carry a gun was automatically denied.

If you were legally licensed, there were limits as to how many guns and how much ammunition you could have on hand. These limitations varied depending upon what the “proving a need” involved. Hunting provided guns of certain types different than target shooters. Hunters had to buy a license to hunt and that license provided further gun and ammunition regulations that were strictly enforced. And remember, these licenses were issued to only those the government deemed completely trustworthy and were not known to be in opposition to the central government, later the Nazis.

Eventually, it became illegal to manufacture any weapon that could be, “rapid disassembly beyond the generally usual extent for hunting and sporting purposes.” (more assault weapons to be banned)

Prison terms were established for violation of these laws, including laws that required immediate notification to authorities in the event that someone inherited a gun or ammunition.

The Reichskommissar at the time, Kuenzer, in an explanation of the need to implement the new gun regulations, explains: “The law necessitated long consultations in the Reichsrat [legislative assembly] because it interferes strongly with the police authority of the Länder [states].”

Included in this “comprehensive” gun law, was the prohibition of individual states to make any gun laws on their own. All states were now subject to the wishes and whims of gun control of the central government.

Reichskommissar Kuenzer explained the reason it was necessary to implement a “comprehensive” (reasonable) gun law: “The purpose and goal of the law at hand are to get firearms that have done so much damage from the hands of unauthorized persons and to do away with the instability and ambiguity of the law that previously existed in this area. The difficult task was to find the appropriate limits between this necessity of the state on the one hand and the important interests of the weapons industry that was employing a large number of workers and had been heavily damaged through the peace treaty, the interests of the legal sporting industry, and the personal freedom of the individual.”

Now that gun manufacturing was completely controlled by the central government, all guns manufactured commercially had to be stamped with the name of the company that made it, or sold it; “in the interest of solving criminal acts committed with firearms.”

All of these “reasonable” gun regulations should sound very familiar to Americans. We have listened to the demands of totalitarians for more gun control, while voicing all the same claims as those in Germany 100 years ago. Germans, after World War I, lived in fear and chaos, much because the government and other political factions, pounded the fear of communism into the people’s brains. Eventually they believed that it was necessary to give up their rights if it would protect them from the communists.

In America today, we have our government pounding into our heads fear of terrorism from “radicalized Muslims,” and other events like mass shootings. Now that terror attacks, by “radical Muslims” have occurred in this country, the centralized government is demanding more gun restrictions, convincing more and more people that with stricter laws, terrorists will not be able to inflict harm on the people. It seems that this was the same reasoning that Reichskommissar Kuenzer used in his explanation to the German people.

The above historic synopsis of German gun rights, all happened BEFORE the Hitler Regime took control. There is no doubt these actions set the stage for fascist rule.

We know some of what Hitler did. We know that he completed the gun grab, taking all guns away from anybody he did not want to have them. It should be noted that Hitler, shortly after taking power, basically suspended the German Constitution and gave himself the authority to write and implement laws, without the authority or approval of the Reichsrat.

Examination of the events in the United States reveals that the U.S. Constitution has, for the most part, been suspended. Many laws are written by Congress and signed by the president that do not conform to the constitution. In addition, all actions, whether legal or not, carried out without opposition, sets precedent and therefore becomes law by default. This same shameful act happens in the Courts. With each administration “policy” is established. Once again, history, unlearned, reveals that “policy” becomes the law of the land by unchallenged precedent.

When Hitler first came to office, he worked with his administration and departments, to implement his Third Reich ideology. As we have learned, eventually he was given the power to write any laws he wanted. In America today, we now see the growing, illegal act of presidents writing their own laws through “executive actions.” The longer this goes unchallenged, the more Americans run the risk of dictatorial rule as we saw with Hitler.

Over 100 years ago, people didn’t believe anyone or any government as dark and sinister as the Hitler Regime could attain power into any country. Even when Hitler was carrying out his genocide, Americans, and much of the rest of the world denied it was happening. Where did that denial lead us?

Today, we live with the same denials. We go about our business believing that any gun laws are mostly benign and that any “reasonable” gun laws are done for the safety of the people and to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists. History proves this never happens. History proves that disarming the people, leads to Fascism.

Political Correctness results in efforts to prohibit free speech about Hitler and the most effort goes into finding ways to block any discussions that make comparisons of Hitler with anyone or anything in America today. The denial and repression of truth will lead to death.

National Center for Public Policy Research Leading the Charge Against Extremist Attacks on the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)

As ALEC Works to Improve Business Environment and Expand American Jobs, Liberal Activists Spread Misinformation and Fear

Washington, DC – The National Center for Public Policy Research is advising investors to reject shareholder resolutions being presented by extremely liberal activists posing as good governance stewards at the respective upcoming annual shareholder meetings of Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson and Honeywell.

The annual meeting of Pfizer shareholders will take place April 23 in Short Hills, New Jersey at 8:30 AM.

The annual meeting of Johnson & Johnson shareholders will take place April 23 in New Brunswick, New Jersey at 10:30 AM.

The annual meeting of Honeywell shareholders will take place April 27 in Morris Township, New Jersey at 10:30 AM.

“Corporate America is under assault from a twisted web of coordinated, progressive activist groups that pose as good governance proponents,” said National Center Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof, Esq. “From NorthStar Asset Management, to As You Sow, to Ceres, to the SEIU, to the Center for Media & Democracy and many dozens more, liberal activist groups are seeking to use corporations as tools to advance far-left policies on issues such as health care and the environment. But more than anything, this movement is about ending one thing that many liberals simply abhor – free speech.”

At Thursday’s annual meeting of Johnson & Johnson shareholders, investors will vote on a proposal submitted by NorthStar Asset Management that ostensibly asks the company to align its corporate donations with its stated corporate values. However, the proposal is actually an attack on conservative politicians, free market positions and pro-business organizations. The proposal attacks Johnson & Johnson for past donations to politicians that supported free-market approaches to American energy policy and traditional marriage. It also attacks the company for its involvement with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

“NorthStar gives away its true intentions in its proposal’s opening sentence, which complains about the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission by bemoaning the Court’s plain language interpretation of free speech,” said Danhof. “But speech – in this instance, monetary donations – that Johnson & Johnson has made to liberal politicians is conspicuously absent from the laundry list of activities that NorthStar’s proposal complains about. NorthStar’s proposal only complains about donations that advance conservative or free-market causes. And that is the heart of this entire movement – the left is all for free speech, unless it disagrees with that speech.”

NorthStar Asset Management’s proposal can be found on page 78 of Johnson & Johnson’s proxy statement.

“By acceding to the left’s demands to end a relationship with a well-respected, four-decade old organization of state legislators that promotes free market values and limited government, Johnson & Johnson put a target on its back. Once these extreme activists know a company will give an inch, they will come back for a mile,” said Danhof. “Johnson & Johnson’s investors can send a loud message Thursday by rejecting this latest liberal assault and perhaps steel the company’s spine against further attacks.”

Pfizer and Honeywell are under attack specifically for their continued involvement with ALEC.

“Liberal agitators have been running a coordinated effort to demonize ALEC for the better part of three-plus years. Pfizer and Honeywell investors have an opportunity to send a loud message that this movement has lost its steam. Built on a foundation of misinformation and outlandish racial attacks, liberals have been fomenting hatred for ALEC in an overt attempt to stifle free speech,” said Danhof. “Once investors know the truth about these trumped up attacks, I am confident they will reject these proposals and with it the entire anti-ALEC, anti-free speech movement.”

Pfizer investors will vote on a proposal submitted by the Christopher Reynolds Foundation that is a clear attempt to pressure the company to sever ties with ALEC. The proposal attacks work that ALEC did years ago concerning renewable energy standards and voter ID, claiming that such initiatives are “controversial.”

“The Christopher Reynolds Foundation has clearly been spending too much of its time helping the Castro brothers,” said Amy Ridenour, chairman of the National Center for Public Policy Research, “because it has gotten out of touch with the beliefs and interests of Americans here at home. It complains that Pfizer belongs to a pro-business group that supported voter ID years ago. Does the Christopher Reynolds Foundation not realize the American people support voter ID by 70-27%? That Democrats support it 55-43%? Black Americans 51-46? People with a college degree 64-33% and people without, 75-23%? I can well believe Fidel Castro disapproves of voter ID – he doesn’t even approve of voting – but the American people overwhelmingly do.”

“The Christopher Reynolds Foundation also complains in its proposal that ALEC has opposed ‘state-level Renewable Portfolio standards.’ These standards hurt the poor and disproportionally harm minorities by raising their energy prices ,” Ridenour added. “The Christopher Reynolds Foundation says it questions whether opposing regulations that raise energy costs on low-income Americans ‘is consistent with a commitment to integrity.’ Seriously – that’s its position. But we believe keeping energy costs as low as possible for low-income people is a good thing, and we suspect most investors do, too. So we call on Pfizer investors to vote DOWN the Christopher Reynolds Foundation proposal, which is Item #4 on the Pfizer proxy statement, and in so doing, vote UP the views and interests of the American people.”

Next Monday, Honeywell’s investors will face a similar proposal being moved by the City of Philadelphia Public Employees Retirement System and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Pension Benefit Fund. Their proposal is on page 90 of the Honeywell proxy statement.

“This proposal is nothing more than an attempt to use Honeywell as a tool to continue the left’s tired tripe that ALEC is some boogeyman to be feared,” said Danhof. “The proponents are part of an effort that is actively working to undermine America’s capitalistic roots and by extension Honeywell itself. As the Obama Administration continues to expand the regulatory state, ALEC’s market-based approaches to policy problems are needed now more than ever.”

The National Center has participated in eight shareholder meetings in 2015.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors. Sign up for free issue alerts here.

Maybe the “rights” Maher enjoys, i.e. his right to “free speech”, making jokes and pissing on people’s feet, hit a bit too close to home with Charlie Hebdo. False anger and bravado doesn’t mean squat when you only have the bravery to defend pet rights while dissing others.

“We have to stop saying ‘We shouldn’t insult a great religion.’ First of all, there are no great religions, they’re all stupid and dangerous. And we should insult them, and we should be able to insult whatever we want. That is what free speech is like.”<<<Read More>>>